11938660 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

Ex Parte Nishikawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2015

11938660 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/938,660 11/12/2007 Yuko Nishikawa 80398P705 4429 8791 7590 03/30/2015 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER CHIN, RICKY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2015 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte YUKO NISHIKAWA, SETH HILL, NICK COLSEY, RAJESH RAO, and ROLF TOFT 1 ________________ Appeal 2012-011681 Application 11/938,660 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–19, 21, and 22. Claims 5, 11, and 20 are canceled. Br. 18, 20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention Appellants invented a method for obtaining filtered audiovisual content over a network for display on a television. Abstract. “In one 1 Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, and Sony Electronics Inc., New Jersey, United States, are the real parties in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2012-011681 Application 11/938,660 2 embodiment, remote control 110 communicates with television 102 to request video content.” Spec. ¶ 25. “The request is communicated by television 102 or passed through television 102 to [set back box] 104.” Id. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: receiving a request for a listing of available video content from a television (TV) at a set back box (SBB), the request including at least one factor received via a user interface of the TV that specifies an attribute of the requested video content, wherein the at least one factor includes a specification of a television parental rating of which the requested video content should not exceed; composing the request at the SBB for video content based on the at least one factor to be sent to a content server by the SBB; communicating the request and the at least one factor to the content server; and receiving a response at the SBB indicating video content available from the content server that satisfies the at least one factor. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 8–10, 13, 16–19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benya (US 2008/0155613 A1; June 26, 2008), Stark (US 2006/0041927 A1; Feb. 23, 2006), and Pedlow (US 2007/0186259 A1; Aug. 9, 2007). Ans. 4–7. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benya, Stark, Pedlow, Dettinger (US 2006/0064394 Appeal 2012-011681 Application 11/938,660 3 A1; Mar. 23, 2006), and Amon (US 2009/0125816 A1; May 14, 2009). Ans. 7–9. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benya, Stark, Pedlow, and Eshleman (US 2005/ 0278774 A1; Dec. 15, 2005). Ans. 9–10. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benya, Stark, Pedlow, and Huslak (US 2006/0288398 A1; Dec. 21, 2006). Ans. 10. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Benya and Pedlow teaches or suggests “receiving a request for a listing of available video content from a television (TV) at a set back box (SBB),” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Benya’s method of providing content to a set top box user, in response to a query from a web browser or set top box, teaches or suggests receiving a request for a listing of available video content from a television at a set top box. Ans. 4 (citing Benya Figs. 4a, 4b, ¶¶ 60 and 108). The Examiner further relies on Pedlow to teach or suggest the use of a set back box instead of a set top box. Ans. 5 (citing Benya ¶¶ 47, 66). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Benya merely teaches that “a content store may . . . have to determine whether a query was sent from a web interface or a set top box.” Br. 11 (citing Benya Fig. 4A). Appellants further argue “Benya does not describe or suggest a set back box that receives requests from a television or from a user interface provided by Appeal 2012-011681 Application 11/938,660 4 the television.” Br. 11. However, the Examiner further finds Pedlow’s set back box upstream communications, which enable the ordering of services and channels, also teach or suggest receiving a request for a listing of available video content from a television at a set back box. Ans. 12 (citing Pedlow ¶¶ 47, 66, and 68). The Examiner’s findings are supported by Pedlow’s teaching that a set top box (or a set back box) “can operate in a bidirectional communication mode so that data and other information can be transmitted not only from the system’s head end to the end user . . . but also, from the end user upstream.” Pedlow ¶ 68. Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s reliance on Pedlow, but merely contend Pedlow still fails to teach or suggest “receiving a request for a listing of available video content from a television (TV) at a set back box (SBB).” Br. 12. Appellants’ conclusory statement does not address the bidirectional communication capabilities of Pedlow and therefore it is insufficient to show error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to Pedlow. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Benya and Pedlow teaches or suggests “receiving a request for a listing of available video content from a television (TV) at a set back box (SBB),” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5, 12. Appellants further argue, “because the set top box of Benya does not receive the request from a television, Benya also fails to describe or suggest the set back box to compose requests, which have [been] received from the television, to be sent to a content server, as claimed.” Br. 11. However, the Examiner’s findings persuasively show the combination of Benya and Pedlow teaches or suggests the receipt of a request from a television. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of error. Appeal 2012-011681 Application 11/938,660 5 Appellants further argue Stark’s content management system does not cure the purported deficiency of Benya and Pedlow. Id. at 11–12. However, as the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of Benya and Pedlow is not deficient, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive of error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–4, 6, 8–10, 13, 16–19, and 21, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 13. Appellants make similar arguments with respect to claims 7, 12, 14, 15, 22, merely arguing the additional references do not cure the purported deficiencies of Benya and Pedlow. Br. 13–15. However, as we find Benya and Pedlow are not deficient, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–19, 21, and 22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED lv